The Bogus Take Back America Conference

A few weeks ago I received an invitation to attend the Take Back America conference held in the nation’s capital this week. It was a star-studded gala with some of the Democratic Party’s most prominent luminaries, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. What struck me funny about the invitation, in a pathetic kind of way, was that both Clinton and John Kerry were touted as progressives. I had to laugh aloud at this news. But then it dawned on me that the people behind this campaign were serious. Silly me! I chose not to attend, on the excuse that I was donating all of my organs to science this week...

There were many things wrong with the Take Back America Conference. Like most of the participants, Hillary Clinton was a major supporter of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, as was John Kerry. As is his habit, flip-flop Kerry has since reversed his earlier stance and now speaks out against the criminal war. I am not sure if this should be to Kerry’s credit or not. John Kerry’s original stance as a presidential candidate was to send more troops into harms way and to throw more gasoline onto the fire.

By portraying politicos like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry as liberals the corporate media is successfully moving the debate farther to the right, as real progressives such as Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich find ever fewer avenues for the expression of ideas that fall outside of the political mainstream. Thus, we find ourselves in a vice that is continuously tightened around our vitals. Our eyes must be popping out of our heads by now under the excruciating pressure.

There is precious little counter-veiling force to push things to the left of the extreme right, back toward the center of the political spectrum, let alone to the left of center. There is so little visionary thinking, so little real debate.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/1729941.php

and restrict access to just people who agree with you. That way you can be happy again.

I had a great time at the TBA Conference, met a lot of bloggers and spoke to a lot of very progressive people. I'm sure that I would also have fun at your conference, if I was pure enough to attend it. (Will there be a test for liberal purity, btw? I would like to study up.)

I went the previous two years, but not this one. Just because someone voted for the war doesn't make them non-progressive. There are dozens of other issues to look at, and I also like that TBA didnt play favorites. They even invited Lieberman in 2004 (Cuz they invited all the other candidates) but he chose not to come.

I just love people who hate anyone who doesn't agree with EVERY single they think themselves.

:eyes:

We don't have much time; so let's focus our energy where it will do the most good. Write off the media, it's a lost cause for now, until their bread is buttered on the other side, which at this rate will be a fozen day you-know-where. We need to think outside the box.
Have a little faith in the people. The founding fathers did. It's our only hope anyway.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

....then maybe you could figure out how to put your user name to some actual good. If you have some concrete ideas then by all means figure out a way to practice those ideas.

On edit: I apologize for not extending a :applause:Big Welcome to DU:pals: Hope you like it here at DU and I also hope you find something to like about liberals.:hi:

Lead.

Follow.

Get out of the way.

Griping about an event you didn't even attend is UNPRODUCTIVE, to put it kindly.

where I come from flip-flops are a nice summer shoe.

Quite frankly JK gave a great speech there.

So much for sf.indymedia

PS welcome to DU

because, if they had, they would have known that the OP was just linking TO an editorial regarding this subject and was NOT expressing that him/herself.

The piece was written by Charles Sullivan, a freelance writer in Virginia.

quoting Karl Rove Talking Points.

It was directed to the several posters previous who trounced the OP instead of Mr. Sullivan.

I was supporting Kucinich for 33 years, and for 30 of those years fought with my liberal friends who thought he was too conservative, I trusted Dennis' heart instead of throwing him out because of his more conservative leanings then.

Charles Sulllvan is so dumb he doesn't even realize that most everything he has learned about the Bush family is due to Kerry's dogged investigations.

He also has poor comprehension skills. Kerry has always maintained that Bush should NOT have gone to war when the weapon inspectors and diplomacy were proving that military force was not needed. Once Bush went to war, Kerry had to deal with THAT reality and put up a plan to stabilize Iraq in a way Bush was unable to do, so power could be transferred more easily to the Iraqi people.

When Bush failed to secure Iraq even after their elections, Kerry submitted a withdrawal plan with that new reality facing us - civil war in Iraq, even after THREE elections.

Sullivan is a dumbass. And he uses RW media spin to prove he's a dumbass.

I just thought it was interesting.

I also laughed out loud when I heard who was speaking. I thought that is who we were trying to take America Back from.

I know you'll love Kerry, but before the last 'election' the polls showed a clear majority were against the war and he could have won on that alone. Kerry sided with Bush, suggested sending 40,000 troops. You might still like him, but you can't rewrite history.

It was Kucinich's speech at the Take Back America conference that gained it so much publicity in the progressive scene and encouraged Dennis to run for president. Now it seems like they didn't even invite him.

Then why are you claiming a "clear majority" was against the war in 2004? Because that's a blatant falsehood.

Kerry made clear in 2004 that he would call a summit of Mid-east leaders, begin withdrawing troops in 2005, and made it clear that THERE WOULD BE NO PERMANENT OCCUPATION. So, nice try, but your feeble attempt to paint Bush and Kerry's Iraq positions as the same falls miserably short. Maybe you should stop reading dishonest propaganda and letting Indymedia do your thinking for you?

The fact is, Kerry is leading on Iraq NOW. Like MADem said: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

voice in the party.
I do disagree with you though about 04. Not liking a war and being sick and tired of the wrong directions taken and wanting out are two different things.

He did say they needed that many more in the military to avoid sending troops repeatedly back to war. You are the one rewriting history.

Remember, the "middle" of our political spectrum is the right wing. That is what we are faced with in this fight. There is no getting around it. In the sixties, Barry Goldwater was so far right he scared people away from the Republican party - today, Goldwater would be a moderate Republican. The Democratic Party is, at best, a "centrist" party and hasn't won an election since 1996. So, progressives and liberals (who will admit to the names) are in a minority, even in the Democratic party, and that is what it is like living in a Fascist country. It means we must be willing to fight, physically fight - and a lot of people do not want to hear that...

Thanks for posting. You just summed it up.

We've been sitting in the warm water for too long.

from the hands of the capitalists and putting it in the hands of the people where it belongs. But what am I thinking? Plutocrats do not believe in the wisdom or the right of the people to govern themselves or to work for the collective good. These are socialist ideologies that place the welfare of the working people above the greed of the corporations. We will not be having any of that at this conference, or in this country, thank you."

personally, I can't argue with this statement . . .

"major supporters of the invasion and occupation of Iraq". He spoke out against the invasion before it happened. What has changed is that he has said his vote for the IWR was wrong. This does not change that he voted for it to get the inspectors in and to give Bush leverage at the UN. You certainly heard "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." There were meny many statements that he would not have gone to war.

He said more troops were needed in the military, NOT IN IRAQ. The point was that the scarity of troops had led to the back door draft where people are send back for multipe tours with little time to recover. Kerry's Sept 2005 plan (given at NYU) was a sensible plan that called for major diplomatic efforts, excelerated training of Iraqis, reconstruction using Iraqis, stronger borders and helping facilitate their getting a government. He also (in the debates called for no permanent bases and said we need to say this right away).

You clearly picked up all the RW talking points. (Do you think Kuchinich would have endorsed Kerry if he was as you said?) Kerry is a liberal or a liberal to moderate over a 22 plus year career.

I think McKinney may be at the very far fringe part of the party.

sorry! that is why i always post the cite at the beginning when i post someone else's words.

welcome to du.

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

ellen fl

His voting record reflects this. As for the war, he supported the resolution to use force as a last resort. Noting that war is always the results of failed diplomacy and should never be a first resort. It is widely believed that more troops at the very beginning of the conflict would have eliminated what we have now seen happen. If war was necessary,as Pres. Bush claimed, then it should have been done right, with a plan to win the peace as well as the war. Senator Kerry's floor speech was excellent and touched on many concerns he had about a conflict with Iraq.

Thats right out of freeperland.

If some random DUer posted the content of a Michelle Malkin blog piece without any explanation, I think most people would be justified in assuming the poster agrees with Michelle Malkin.

except in the minds of the RW. Do you think it was a poll driven move to investigate the Contra gun and drug running at the peak of the popularity of Reagan. The funding the contras had popular support, even from Democrats like Gore and Bill Clinton. Kerry ignored everyone in his own party to fight BCCI. (This could easily have killed his career.) He also understood, even in 1971 that speaking out on the Vietnam War could hamper his political chances.

Even today - note that there are not tons of people following his lead on getting out of Iraq.

Would you be referring to Joe Lieberman? Bush's pet?

:shrug:

But when the rubber meets the road...far too many Democrats go along to get along with the corporations first agenda as persued by the Republicans and the DLC/Hamiltonian Democrats.

We need to have a good metric to evaluate our elected officials commitment to protecting the needs of the middle class and we need to vote them out of office in the primaries.

We need less progressive posers (Hillary, Obama, Warner) and more progressive fighters like Feingold, Kucinich, and Wellstone.

"Lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds."

to criticize.

He is entitled not to like Kerry or Clinton. He may if he wants mischaracterize Kerry's record. But Feingold spoke at the same conference,as did many other speakers like Reid, Pelosi, ... and this gentleman, just like the MSM media where he learned how to write, is only reporting about facts he was not present to and in a very incomplete manner.

So, I guess it may be better to ignore this type of idiocy and read reports from people WHO WERE THERE.

Thanks to the OP to show us bad reporting in all its splendor.

I'm certainly sympathetic to criticisms of some of our politicos, but bashing them for attending a "progressive" conference, which the author didn't himself attend suggests that the lack of visionary thinking and real debate is not a one-sided affair. I hope those organs are being put to good use by someone.